Bush gave a speech today in which he said, “The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror, and that depends on victory in Iraq.”

Fred Kaplan of Slate calls him out:

Here’s the question: Does anybody believe this? If you do, then you must ask the president why he hasn’t reactivated the draft, printed war bonds, doubled the military budget, and strenuously rallied allies to the cause.

If, as he said in this speech, the war in Iraq really is the front line in “the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century”; if our foes there are the “successors to Fascists, to Nazis, to Communists”; if victory is “as important” as it was in Omaha Beach and Guadalcanal—then those are just some of the steps that a committed president would feel justified in demanding.

If, as he also said, terrorism takes hold in hotbeds of stagnation and despair, then you must also ask the president why he hasn’t requested tens or hundreds of billions of dollars for aid and investment in the Middle East to promote hope and livelihoods.

I wouldn’t mind seeing some Democrats talk about this in the fall campaign. Run to Bush’s right, as it were – although that’s really the wrong way to put it. This shouldn’t be a right-wing position; it should be a common-sense position.

If Iraq is important, if we need to “win,” then we need to do what it takes to do that. If we can’t “win,” or if being there isn’t accomplishing anything, then we need to leave.

We need to shit or get off the pot.